Health Care, Religion, and Secularism

Despite living on a different continent, I still keep up with American news and politics.  It is remarkably different than Israeli politics, both on a systemic and personal level.  However, there are some similarities.  One depressing similarity is the influence of religion on politics.

Religious influence on Israeli politics is obvious.  Religious, fundamentalist Jews of various stripes make up a growing portion of the populace.  They have significant control over important facets of life such as marriage and immigration.  Here in Jerusalem, they are ubiquitous and influential.  The struggle between secular and fundamentalist Jews for control is a huge part of Israeli politics now and for the foreseeable future.

Americans shouldn't feel smug or superior, though, for we are far from a secular society.  I am saddened by the inclusion of the Stupak amendment to the House health care reform bill.  What bothers me most is not that Republicans and evangelical Christians backed it; what bothers me is that the Catholic Church put significant pressure on Democratic leaders to back it as well.

It has been fairly obvious for some time that the Evangelical movement doesn't care at all about the separation of church and state; to them, the government is a tool to force their religious views on the rest of American society.  Luckily, President Bush and other Republicans did not have the capacity and/or desire to reform American society in the Evangelical image.  But it is truly troubling when Democrats have allowed religion to influence important bills impacting the lives of all Americans, religious and irreligious.  If the Democratic Party cannot stand up for secularism, for the separation of church and state as the Founding Fathers intended, then who will?

Israel is not a secular society.  It was founded as Jewish state.  The debate here is not about whether or not religious views should inform policy but whose religious views win out.  America was designed to be a truly secular society.  It was not founded as a Christian nation despite what some want you to believe, but as a secular nation.  Yet somewhere along the line, we have lost sight of this ideal.  There are secular reasons to oppose abortion but these are not the reasons advanced by anti-abortion activists.  The Democrats did not bow to secular anti-abortion arguments but to political pressure by the religiously motivated.

The religious nature of Israel certainly annoys me but at least they are being true to the intent of their nation.  If only Americans could be so true to the intent of ours.

Ok, not entirely Bush...

I want to clarify my point in the last post.  The Bush administration held a hard line against Iran and tried to bring pressure from many different angles.  However, they did so clumsily and failed to win significant international support, particularly from China and Russia, two of Iran's key economic partners.  While nothing is certain, the Obama administration efforts have garnered significant international support including spoken support from Russia.

So sanctions may be possible and effective given a united, sustained effort.  This is where the Bush administration consistently failed.  Its outright rejection of multi-nationalism and insistence on unilaterism made international support impossible on any number of issues where the US could not achieve its objectives alone.  This was an ideological blindness that Obama obviously does not share.

One idea discussed in a great conversation with my parents last night was the possibility that there was a bit of quid pro quo with Russia concerning the missile defense shield and Iran's nuclear program.  Obama conceded some ground to Russia by realigning American missile defense priorities to the Middle East and out of Eastern Europe.  I don't think anyone realistically thinks Russia is going to launch nukes anytime soon so strategically it makes sense.  Plus, it puts further pressure on Iran by showing that the US takes the Iranian threat seriously and will take steps to counter Iranian missiles.

If Obama does get Russia's cooperation on the Iranian nuclear program and possible sanctions, then he will have won a huge diplomatic victory crucial to achieving non-proliferation.  It goes to show that toughness isn't everything; sometimes, you have to be smooth as well.

Iran, nukes, sanctions, and Israel

During Thursday's "Arab-Israeli Conflict" class, Professor Sheldon asked us how we thought the dialogue between Ahmadinejad and Obama would go at their meeting on October 1st.  A few ventured various guesses, usually along the lines of "Here is what we want you to stop doing and here's why" or "We respect you and the great nation of Iran.  We have these complaints, we're sure you have complaints as well, how can we find common ground?"  The first is essentially the Bush administration's stance and the second is the Carter administration's stance, albeit with a bit more teeth.

Professor Sheldon's criticism of the Obama administration's stance toward Iran was that it was Carter redux.  However, the Obama administration has taken a harder line toward Iran in recent weeks, particularly with the exposure of a secret Iranian nuclear installation.  In fact, they are now demanding that Iran open the facility to inspectors within weeks or face tougher sanctions.

While previous pressure on the Iranian government may have proved fruitless, circumstances have changed drastically in recent months in light of the last Iranian election and subsequent demonstrations.  The Iranian regime lost any vestiges of legitimacy it may have had domestically and is arguably at its weakest since its inception in 1979.  Many demonstrators were discontent with the focus on foreign affairs over economic and domestic concerns.  Or in other words, why should Iranians be funding Hamas and Hezbollah when there are not enough jobs in Tehran?

The Iranian system is designed to give the semblance of representation where none exists.  His bluster aside, Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a figurehead.  Real policy is made by the Supreme Leader, Khameini, and the Guardian Council, a body of twelve clerics which controls the laws and potential candidates for president and parliament.

But as Khameini and Ahmadinejad have discovered, an educated, affluent middle class demands a government sensitive to its needs and will use whatever semblance of representation it has to force such sensitivity.  Iranians want more control over their national politics; they want true representation, a desire that has been only inflamed by oppression.  And once such a movement starts, it is nearly impossible to quash without further underscoring the illegitimacy of the repressive regime.

So Obama is faced with an Iranian government that is both strong and weak at the same time; strong because its principle regional rival, Iraq, no longer is a threat, and weak because it is illegitimate in the eyes of its own people.  Obama cannot take the Carter approach lest he give cover to a repressive regime and show weakness.  Oddly enough, circumstances suggest that it may be most fruitful to pursue the Bush approach in hopes of isolating and destabilizing the Iranian government enough to set the stage for a revolution.